Morality from the ground up

[The Grand Nudger]

 I'd ask this though: is there a non-arbitrary distinction between this inter-species view and the killing of other humans on the grounds that they are perceived by us as less important?  Cows are much less threatening to my family than are, say, North Koreans.  Should I save a cow and eat a gook?

Sure there is, but it's never going to tell you to save a cow and eat a person, since that non-arbitrary measure we use both in determining whether or not it's okay to eat something -and- how we should handle that somethings end of life is sentience. More importantly......farming and eating people aint exactly a good idea on the health front, laying aside ethics. That said, if we - for whatever reason, had no choice but to mow down on sentient creatures...as we currently have no choice but to end life for the sake of our own...that;s what we'd do, and while it would be sub-optimal I doubt anyone would condemn you for it.

As for vegetarianism: I believe that large-scale farm machinery (threshers) etc. probably kill very many ground-dwelling birds and mammals, and that grazing animals probably kill relatively few.  So if I eat a single grazing cow, I may very well be saving many lives.  That being said, I'd say that eating grain-eating cattle is a double sin, since animals died to make the grain, and the cattle-feeding is an inefficient use of calories.

It's a highly efficient use of perishable or unavailable calories, of marginal lands, of skills, of infrastructure, and of funds.  I suppose that if you only consider it from the point of view of the end consumer that might not be immediately visible - but those are the things that actually go into the decision to run a cattle operation, not the musings on caloric efficiency or density of a vegetarian.